JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgments and decree dated 15-12-1976 passed by the Additional District judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. l7-A of 1974 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23-8-1974 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Mowganj in Civil suit No. 44-A of 1971 the case of the plaintiff was that he was a co-owner of the suit lands along with the. defendants and that he had I/4th share in the lands situated in one village and 1 / 2 share in the lands situated in the other. It was on the basis of his abovesaid case that the relief of declaration with regard to his title was claimed by him against the defendants. It was alleged by him that he was in joint possession of the suit lands along with the defendants. But, the relief of being put in joint possession of the lands was also claimed by him as an alternative relief. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Some of the defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants was barred under section 257 (v) read with section 210 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959. It dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the said ground, It is being aggrieved by it that the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal in this Court. ( 2. ) NOW, section 210 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 occurs in chapter XVI of the said Code. The Chapter relates to consolidation of holdings. In section 205, consolidation of holdings is defined as the redistribution of all or any of the land in a village, so as to allot to the bhumiswamis contiguous plots of land for the convenience of cultivation. Section 209 contemplates preparation of scheme for consolidation of holdings by the Consolidation Officer in the manner laid down by the rules. It provides that when the scheme of consolidation is complete, the Consolidation officer, after considering and as far as possible removing the objections, if any, made to the scheme, shall submit it for confirmation to the Collector. Section 210 deals with confirmation of the scheme. It provides that when the scheme of consolidation is complete, the Consolidation officer, after considering and as far as possible removing the objections, if any, made to the scheme, shall submit it for confirmation to the Collector. Section 210 deals with confirmation of the scheme. It provides that the Collector may either confirm the scheme with or without modification or refuse to confirm it after considering the objections, if any, to the scheme of consolidation and the recommendation of the consolidation Officer. It further provides that the decision of the Collector, subject to any order that may be passed in revision by the Settlement commissioner under section 50, shall be final. It is with regard to this provision contained in section 210 that it is provided in clause (v) of section 257 of the Code that no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction over confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holdings under the said provision. ( 3. ) IT is settled law that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts has to be strictly construed and that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be assumed unless the statute contains an expression to that effect or leads to it by necessary implication. As already seen above, the scheme of consolidation of holdings is concerned, primarily with the redistribution of all or any of the land in a village so as to allot to the Bhumiswamis contiguous plots of land for the convenience of cultvation, The scheme has no direct concern with the question whether the person who is recorded as a Bhumiswami of a particular land does in fact have any title in respect of the said land or with the question whether he holds it only as a co-owner along with others. In the circumstances, it is obvious that when section 257 (v) provides that no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction over confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holdings under section 210 of the Code there is no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts under the said provision to decide any question relating to the title of the person who comes to be recorded as a Bhumiswami of the land upon confirmation of the scheme. The question that needs consideration is whether the provision excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts with regard to the matter in question by necessary implication. The question that needs consideration is whether the provision excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts with regard to the matter in question by necessary implication. ( 4. ) IN the above connection, there are certain other provisions contained in chapter XVI of the Code which are worth noting. Section 211 provides that upon confirmation of the scheme of consolidation, the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, demarcate the boundaries of the holdings and shall proceed to announce the decisions finally made and cause to be prepared in accordance with the scheme, a new field-map, record of rights, other records prescribed under section 114, Nistar Patrak and Wajib-ul-arz. It also provides that the new records prepared shall be deemed to have been prepared under Chapter IX or XVIII as the case may be. Again, section 219 provides that Bhumiswamis shall have the same rights in the holding or land allotted to him in pursuance of a scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding, These provisions make it clear that a Patta granted under them does not confer any new rights in Bhumiswami in whose name the same is granted and he continues to have the same rights in the new land which he had in the original land. It means that if his rights in the original land were only those of a co-owner, the same could not stand enlarged to those of an exclusive owner upon confirmation of the scheme. . ( 5. ) AGAIN, it is significant to note that upon confirmation of the scheme of i consolidation, the new records prepared under section 211 are to be deemed to have been prepared under Chapter IX or XVIII of the Code as the case may be. Section 111 occurring in Chapter IX of the Code provides that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right having been recorded in the record of rights. Section 111 occurring in Chapter IX of the Code provides that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right having been recorded in the record of rights. If in spite of any right having been recorded in the record of rights, the civik;ourt is vested with jurisdiction under section 111 to decide any dispute between the private parties relating to the said right, there is no reason to think that the record of rights that comes into existence as a result of the confirmation of the scheme of consolidation under section 211 would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the civil court in the same manner. ( 6. ) IT is thus clear that when it is provided in clause (v) of section 257 of the code that no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction regarding confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holding under section 210, what is excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil court is the redistribution of land in accordance with the scheme of consolidation after the same is confirmed by the Collector after considering the objections to the same and the recommendations of the consolidation officer. The nature of the rights that a Bhumiswami had in the original land remains unchanged and the effect the confirmation of the scheme of consolidation is only that instead of having the said rights in the original land he has the said rights in the new land that is allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme. The mere fact that as a result of the confirmation of the scheme a Patta is granted to him and his name is recorded in the new records prepared under section 211 does not take away the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide whether apart from him others were also the co-owners of the original land and became entitled to the same rights along with him in the new land. ( 7. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants on the ground that the same was barred under section 257 (v) read with section 210 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are set aside. ( 7. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants on the ground that the same was barred under section 257 (v) read with section 210 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are set aside. Civil Appeal No. 17-A of 1974is restored to the file of the first appellate court with a direction to hear the appeal on other points raised in the memo of appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The records of the case be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.